>hopefully the final result will be able to express the more complex >forms of wedgitude such as "your check was sent two years ago via IESG >express under tracking number XXXX and is currently being held at our >hub until it can be stapled to another check from a different working >group" So, e.g., for draft-ietf-ospf-2547-dnbit, is it enough to say "Waiting for draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547 (IESG Evaluation :: AD Followup) and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities (Approved- Announcement sent)"? (Note that the 2nd one is a REF that's not there of a REF that is there). Is that too much to put on the summary page? Would it also be useful to put a link to, e.g., http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/deps/index.cgi?doc=draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547&docx=on for each dependency, to check further dependencies? (Yes, I should have a "recurse and check all that dependency's dependencies" option) (Note that these dependencies are all heuristically extracted and are a "best case" scenario) For draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib, is it sufficient to say "REFs cleared on 2005/04/20", or would you want to see more detail, that it was draft-ietf-mpls-bundle that was holding it up? I'm starting to think that for most of the complex relationships, we want a summary on the top level (e.g., draft-ietf-ospf-2547-dnbit could say "REF to 2 drafts not in queue") and a detail page that gives you all the info - otherwise I'm concerned about cluttering up the top page. And, of course, a picture is worth a thousand words, perhaps I could find a way to fit http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/iesg/rfc-deps.pdf in there. Bill _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf